GIFT  OF  . 


'U^f,  -fL.  u^y^^  ^^ '  -/  f.  /.  y^^.,^:^:;^ 


<Xi)&[ 


[Reprinted   from   the  Publications  of  the   Modern  Language   Association  of  America, 
Vol.  IX,  No.  2.] 


/tWA^ 


THE   PSYCHOLOGICAL  BASIS  OF  PHONETIC  LAW 
AND  ANALOGY.  -^ """ 

"All's  love,  yet  all's  law." — Browning,  Saul  XVII. 

The  subject  of  Phonetic  Law  and  Analogy  belongs  to 
Psychology  as  well  as  to  Philology ;  it  originated,  however, 
and  was  for  a  long  time  kept  within  the  domain  of  the  latter 
discipline.  When  it  first  came  into  the  foreground  of  our 
interest,  it  was  agitated  by  scholars  in  historical  philology. 
The  experience  of  daily  linguistic  research  suggested  both  the 
question  and  the  answer,  and  in  fact  the  main  importance  of 
the  whole  problem  was  seen  in  the  influence  which  its  solution 
must  have  upon  the  methods  of  detailed  investigation. 

Do  phonetic  laws  act  with  absolute  consistency  or  not? 
and  how  far  may  analogy  be  recognized  as  an  agency  in 
language-life  ?  These  were  the  points  at  issue.  In  a  general 
way  it  was  a  movement  from  casualty  to  causality.  To  say 
that  any  one  man  started  this  movement  a  few  years  before  or 
during  the  decade  from  1870  to  1880  would  be  unfair.  There 
is  an  uninterrupted  course  of  development  from  Schleicher  to 
Brugmann,  from  Whitney  to  Paul.  On  the  other  hand,  how- 
ever, it  would  be  equally  unfair  not  to  grant  that  during  the 
time  mentioned  a  vague  impression,  a  sub-conscious  motive, 
evolved  into  the  clear  statement  and  the  strict  observance  of 
a  principle. 

The  fact  had  been  recognized,  that  the  Aryan  mother-tongue 
was  a  language  with  fully  developed  inflections  long  before  it 
split  into  its  various  idioms.  Then,  however,  the  so-called 
Indo-European  roots  could  be  no  longer  considered  as  realities ; 
they  were  henceforth  grammatical  abstractions  and  convenient 
formulas.  The  mechanical  dissection  of  individual  words 
could  no  longer  be  applied  to  languages  which  had  inherited 
these  words  as  ready-made  units,  but  each  single  word-form 

1 


•       •••-••      • 

•  ••••••    . 

•  •     •  •«  •  •     • 

•        •   •      •      •  • 


2  G.   E.   KARSTEN. 

must  be  judged  as  a  whole  in  connection  with  and  in  the  light 
of  related  forms.  It  was  seen — and  this  view  was  especially 
suggested  by  the  observation  of  living  dialects — that  gram- 
matical systems  as  those  of  declensions  or  conjugations,  were 
apt  to  mould  the  shape  of  any  individual  member  of  the 
system.  Thus  the  principle  of  analogy  found  its  way  into 
philology.  Thereby  a  number  of  phonetic  laws  appeared  to 
be  relieved  of  what  so  far  had  seemed  to  be  exceptions,  and 
this  finally  led  to  the  conclusion  that  phonetic  laws  suffer  no 
exception  whatever,  and  that  all  deviating  formations  must 
be  due  to  outside  influence,  to  analogy.  The  representative 
men  during  this  period  of  evolution  are  Schleicher,  Curtius, 
Whitney,  Ascoli,  Scherer,  and  Leskien.  Each  of  them  con- 
tributed a  large  share  towards  the  final  result.  Leskien 
especially  emphasized  the  new  ideas  in  theory  and  practice. 
In  his  academic  lectures  at  Leipzig  he  inspired  a  number  of 
pupils  who  were  soon  to  develop  his  teachings  into  a  code 
which  must  henceforth  be  observed  in  all  philological  work. 
They  insisted  with  ever-increasing  energy  upon  the  necessity 
of  adherence  to  laws  and  upon  the  all-pervading  influence  of 
analogy.  At  first  their  statements  were  still  of  a  confessedly 
dogmatic  character.  They  only  claimed  for  their  views  the 
value  of  an  unproved  but  plausible  theory ;  in  the  absence  of 
real  arguments,  they  appealed  to  the  self-respect  of  philologists 
and  enlisted  the  dignity  of  their  science  in  behalf  of  their 
doctrine.  Gradually,  however,  they  became  more  and  more 
aggressive ;  in  the  preface  to  their  Morphologische  Untersuch- 
ungen  1878,  Osthoff  and  Brugmann  published  a  "  confession 
of  faith  "  demanding  adherence  and  scorning  opposition.  In 
turn  the  new  theory  was  called  a  fad  (Modethorheit),  it  met 
with  ridicule,  and  w^orse  than  that,  with  much  passive  resistance. 
But  soon  the  "  aper9u  "  was  supported  by  proof.  It  was  the 
principle  of  analogy  that  first  came  to  be  well  understood,  and 
was  explained  by  Paul,  in  the  fourth  volume  of  his  and  Braune's 
Beitrdge. 


PHONETIC  LAW  AND   ANALOGY.  6 

The  consistency  of  phonetic  laws  still  remained  a  matter  of 
personal  impression.  Neither  the  inductive  nor  the  deductive 
method  yielded  conclusive  arguments.  In  1878  Osthoff  made 
a  somewliat  premature  attempt  to  present  the  subject  before  a 
larger  public.  He  gathered  the  inductive  evidence  so  well 
that  almost  nothing  new  has  since  been  adduced ;  but  it  all 
pointed  only  at  a  probability.  On  the  deductive  side,  Osthoff 
utterly  failed.  It  must  even  be  said  that  in  ascribing  a  decisive 
influence  to  climatic  conditions  he  made  a  step  backwards. 
That  theory  had  been  sufficiently  exposed  by  Whitney. 
OsthofFs  fatal  mistake  lay  in  his  neglect  of  the  psychological 
element  in  phonetic  transitions.  Misled,  perhaps,  by  the 
growing  importance  of  speech-physiology  —  Phonetics — he 
saw  one-sidedly  in  phonetic  laws  the  work  of  the  nerve-muscle 
apparatus  only.  Here  again,  as  in  the  case  of  analogy,  the 
first  true  light  came  from  Paul.  In  his  Principien  der 
Sprachgeschichtey  1880,  the  whole  phenomenon  of  speech  was 
first  treated  on  its  proper  ground,  namely  upon  the  basis  of 
philological  experience  combined  with  a  serious  study  of 
modern  psychology  and  an  exact  knowledge  of  the  physio- 
logical genesis  of  speech-sounds.  Through  PauFs  thorough- 
going investigations  our  insight  into  the  true  nature  of 
Language  has  been  much  deepened ;  based,  as  they  were,  upon 
a  close  observation  of  reality,  they  did  away  with  many  old 
prejudices  and  misleading  abstractions.  As  Whitney's  lin- 
guistic publications  are  of  a  distinctly  different  character,  it 
is  no  injustice  to  our  sound  and  sober  Yale  philologist  to  say, 
that  PauPs  work  was  epochmaking  in  regard  to  the  study  of 
every  aspect  of  language  life  which  it  touched.  Not  that  in 
it  all  riddles  were  solved ;  but  every  problem  was  defined, 
reduced  to  its  real  nature  and  prepared  for  solution,  if  not 
solved.  A  solid  ground  was  now  gained  for  further  discussion  ; 
the  dogmatic  tone  ceased  on  both  sides,  and  soon  a  number  of 
fruitful  essays  appeared,  throwing  more  and  more  light  upon 
the  various  sides  of  our  problem.  The  men  who  took  a 
prominent    part    in    the    discussion    are    Delbriick,   Tobler, 


4  G.    E.   KAESTEN. 

Neumann,  Misteli,  Jespersen,  Brugmann,  Grober,  Wundt, 
Schucharclt,  Kauffmann.  In  America  some  phases  of  our 
subject  have  been  treated  by  Bloomfield,  Easton,  Goebel, 
Tarbell,  Wheeler  and  the  author.  In  the  meantime,  however^ 
one  important  piece  of  inductive  evidence  had  also  been 
obtained  in  favor  of  the  law-theory — an  argument  which  Ost- 
hoff  was  hardly  in  a  position  to  quote — that  is  the  enormous 
gain  which  has  come  to  philology  through  the  new  dogma 
as  applied  by  the  "neogrammarians^^  themselves  and  by  those 
who  sooner  or  later  adopted  the  same  method  in  practice,  though 
not  always  in  theory.  Not  only  has  the  philological  work  of 
Osthoff  and  Brugmann,  of  Braune,  Paul,  Sievers,  of  Bechtel, 
Collitz,  Schmidt,  Kluge,  Noreen,  Neumann,  Meyer-Liibke, 
Schuchardt,^and  others  developed  exceedingly  clear  and  lasting 
results,  but  theirs  has  practically  become  the  working  method 
of  all  philologists ;  nobody  would  to-day  simply  register  an 
exception  to  a  rule  without  making  an  attempt  to  account  for 
the  same.  Some  philologists  even  seem  to  have  already  forgotten 
that  there  ever  was  any  question  about  the  consistency  of  pho- 
netic laws.  In  fact  the  problem  is  now  more  especially  a  psy- 
chological one ;  it  has  largely  lost  its  methodological  interest, 
while  the  solution  itself  is  still  a  matter  of  controversy  and 
while  a  few  may  even  go  so  far  as  to  deny  both  the  truth  and 
the  novelty  of  the  law-theory.  Its  most  successful  opponent 
is  undoubtedly  Schuchardt.  In  an  admirable  pamphlet  and 
in  several  articles  in  the  Litei^aturhlatt  he  has  indeed  shown 
that  some  of  the  fundamental  assumptions  in  PauPs  argumen- 
tation are  untenable. 

In  now  discussing  the  subject  itself  we  think  it  advisable 
to  present  our  own  views  and  observations  somewhat  explicitly 
rather  than  to  offer  a  disconnected  criticism  of  individual 
arguments.  In  this  way  we  shall  have  to  repeat  many  things 
that  have  already  been  said  by  others,  especially  by  our  revered 

^  This  list  is  not  meant  to  be  exhaustive  or  representative ;  it  suggested 
itself  to  the  author  at  random,  merely  on  the  ground  of  his  own  studies. 


PHONETIC  LAW  AND  ANALOGY.  O 

teacher  Paul,  but,  in  turn,  the  points  in  which  we  differ  from 
our  predecessors  will  thus  stand  out  in  their  true  light  and, 
moreover,  we  hope  to  give  such  a  presentation  of  our  subject 
as  will  be  readily  understood  by  those  who  may  not,  as  yet, 
have  paid  attention  to  this  important  question.  First  of  all, 
let  us  see  what  are  the  undisputed  facts  which  historical  phi- 
lology teaches  us  concerning  the  effects  of  phonetic  changes 
and  of  Analogy  upon  the  spoken  language-material. 

Strictly  phonetic  changes,  that  is,  changes  which  seem  to 
affect  the  sounds  of  a  language  regardless  of  the  meaning  of 
the  words  in  which  they  occur,  usually  cause  a  slow  graduation 
of  one  sound  or  group  into  another,  and  the  change  of  a  sound 
in  any  one  word  is,  as  a  rule,  accompanied  by  a  parallel  change 
in  a  number  of  other  words.  A  closer  examination  usually 
enables  us  to  ascertain  the  circumference  of  such  a  change  by 
stating  the  phonetic  conditions  under  which  the  transition  took 
place.  To  be  sure  we  can  never  with  certainty  predict  the 
change  in  any  one  word.  We  are  strictly  limited  to  a  posteriori 
statements,  and  if  we  call  our  abstractions  a  rule  or  law,  we 
must  not  forget  that  the  speech -material  will  fit  into  our  rule 
only  in  so  far  as  our  rule  has  been  made  to  fit  the  speech- 
material.  The  fact,  nevertheless,  remains  of  importance,  that 
phonetic  changes  usually  affect  a  sound  in  whole  groups  of 
words. 

Analogy,  as  the  word  is  most  commonly  used  in  philology, 
seems  to  operate  primarily  with  larger  speech-units,  with  words 
and  word-elements  not  only  as  phonetic  productions,  but  also  as 
expressive  of  their  respective  meanings.  Through  the  medium 
of  the  word-element  analogy  influences  the  sounds  of  the  word  ; 
it  causes  not  a  gradual  transition  of  sounds,  but  it  may  bring 
about  a  substitution  of  word-elements,  and  its  work  in  any  one 
case  does  not  immediately  seem  to  involve  a  change  of  any 
other  word. — It  now  becomes  our  object  to  find  out,  how  and 
why  both  these  factors  come  to  manifest  themselves  in  Lan- 
guage, and  in  order  to  answer  this  question,  we  should  realize 
exactly  what  Language  indeed  is.    We  must  study  the  result. 


6  G.    E.    KAESTEN. 

the  Spoken  word  in  Phonetics  and  historical  philology,  and 
the  subject,  speaking  man,  his  physiology  and  psychology,  in 
order  to  understand  the  act  of  speech. 

Human  language  is  our  agency  of  expression  and  of  inter- 
communication by  means  of  sounds  that  are  produced  by  the 
vocal  organs.  Through  various  motions  of  our  glottis,  our 
palate,  tongue  and  lips,  the  air  from  the  lungs  is  forced  into 
different  vibrations  which  strike  the  ear  of  the  hearer  as  sounds. 
A  word  then,  in  so  far  as  it  consists  of  sounds,  is  merely  a  series 
of  vibrations  which  touch  our  ear  for  a  moment,  then  eradiate 
and,  as  sounds,  die  away ;  it  is  the  transient  result  of  an  action, 
it  has  no  duration,  yet  it  has  its  causes  in  the  past  and  its 
consequences  in  the  future.  That  same  word  has  been  pro- 
nounced before ;  we  may  recognize  it ;  it  was  intended  by  the 
speaker  to  indicate  something  to  us,  and  it  does  so ;  we  may 
reproduce  it  on  our  part  for  the  same  purpose.  What  then  is 
going  on  in  us  that  enables  us  to  recognize  a  word  and  to 
understand  its  meaning,  to  recall  it  again,  and  to  reproduce  it  ? 
Reviewing  the  elements  of  psychology  we  remember  that  the 
sensory  nervous  system  with  its  centre  in  the  brain  and  with 
its  functions  differentiated  into  several  more  or  less  distinct 
branches  is  the  channel  through  which  man  receives  and  real- 
izes the  influx  of  impressions  from  the  world  around  him.  All 
these  branches  with  their  innumerable  fibres  are  constantly  at 
work  and  simultaneously  conduct  their  impressions  to  the  cen- 
tral organ,  like  so  many  reporters  who  are  constantly  wiring 
from  various  places  at  the  same  time  their  experiences  to  the 
central  oflice.  These  reports  are  recorded  and  preserved ;  ^  they 
may  and  they  do  drop  into  unconsciousness  ;  the  vast  majority 
of  them  never  become  conscious  at  all ;  yet  they  all  have  their 
influence  upon  the  individual ;  favorable  circumstances  may 
call  or  recall  them  into  consciousness  or  into  a  state  of  more 

^  Little  is  known,  as  yet,  about  the  real  nature  of  this  process,  and  if 
in  the  following  lines  we  use  expressions  like  "impress,  imprint,  deep"  etc., 
we  are  merely  using  figures  of  speech  which  are  not  meant  to  contain  any 
intimation  as  to  the  way  in  which  our  mental  activity  is  carried  on. 


PHONETIC  LAW  AND  ANALOGY.  7 

or  less  vivid  and  active  subconsciousness.  The  latter  is  suffi- 
cient for  the  purposes  of  speech,  it  is  indeed  the  very  province 
within  which  the  function  of  speech  lies.  The  central  point, 
the  "  Blickpunkt  '^  of  consciousness  is  occupied  by  the  idea  to 
be  expressed,  while  the  act  of  speaking  is  performed  on  the 
very  edge  of  the  wider  sphere,  the  "Blickfeld^'  of  conscious- 
ness, and  partly,  so  far  as  the  mechanical  execution  is  con- 
cerned, within  the  realm  of  unconsciousness.^ 

Now  the  readiness  with  which  a  sensation  or  perception  may 
come  into  consciousness,  or  into  what  we  may  call  cooperative 
subconsciousness,  is  determined  by  various  circumstances  :  by 
the  condition  of  our  mind,  its  momentary  susceptibility  as  well 
as  the  direction  of  its  main  attention,  and  by  the  nature  of 
the  impression  itself,  its  absolute  energy  as  well  as  the  number 
of  times  the  impress  is  repeated.  Upon  all  these  factors  depends 
the  facility  with  which  the  mechanical  retention  of  impressions, 
the  general  faculty  of  memory — "  Gedachtniss  " — can  lead  to 
the  recalling — ^'  Erinnerung  " — of  individual  impressions. 
Among  these  arguments  there  is  one  which  calls  for  further 
explanation,  as  it  is  of  extreme  importance  in  speech,  and  at 
first  sight  not  self-evident.  Namely,  how  can  repetition  take 
place  in  such  a  way  that  the  new  impression  fits  into,  and 
renews  or  strengthens  the  memory  picture  of  a  previous 
impression,  when  in  reality,  considering  the  incessant  change 
of  subject  and  object,  no  two  impressions  can  ever  be  perfectly 
equal  ?  They  can  indeed  only  be  more  or  less  similar  to  each 
other,  but  they  are  nevertheless  connected  in  our  mind,  and  for 
this  reason :  similarity  means,  of  course,  partial  equality, 
equality  of  parts,  and  the  apperception  of  equal  impressions 
into  the  same  memory-picture  naturally  involves  the  merging 
into  one  another  of  the  corresponding  equal  parts  of  two 
similar  impressions.  Of  two  perceptions,  the  one  may  cover 
the  province  of  A  -|-  B,  the  other  that  of  A  +  C ;  then  the  A 

^  This  does  not  preclude  the  possibility  of  conscious  interference  with  the 
development  of  words.  That  factor  may  have  to  be  considered  in  a  study 
of  results,  but  the  usual  psychological  phenomena  are  not  thereby  altered. 


8  G,    E.    KARSTEN. 

of  the  second  will  be  apperceived  into  the  memory  picture  of 
A  of  the  first  impression ;  united  A  being  imprinted  twice, 
may  thereby  stand  out  more  vividly  even,  than  either  B  or  C. 
At  the  same  time  united  A  will  act  as  connecting  link  between 
A  +  B  and  A  +  C.  The  phenomenon  of  apperception  thus 
immediately  leads  to  that  of  association,  and  it  is  obvious  that 
an  association  will  be  more  or  less  intimate  in  proportion  as 
the  equal  connecting  or  the  unequal  connected  parts  prevail. 
Practically,  now,  extreme  similarity  has  the  same  effect  upon 
our  mind  as  perfect  equality  :  the  impressions  cover  each  other 
completely  and  the  composite  result  is  simply  a  strengthening 
of  the  old  memory-picture.  This  is  due  to  two  circumstances  : 
namely,  subtle  as  our  nerve-brain  apparatus  may  be,  it  is  not 
absolutely  perfect.  There  is  a  threshold  of  sensitiveness ; 
minute  impressions  are  not  recorded;  they  are  lost  in  the 
apparatus.  Hence  the  element  of  personal  error  in  all  per- 
ceptions. This  comparative  dullness  of  our  nervous  system, 
of  course,  accounts  only  for  the  mere  possibility  of  similar 
impressions  being  recorded  as  equal,  while  it  would  not  preclude 
the  opposite  occurrence,  namely,  the  deviating  of  two  percep- 
tions from  each  other  beyond  the  actual  difference.  How- 
ever, as  a  very  important  fact  in  this  connection,  it  has  been 
recently  ascertained,^  that  in  every  new  perception  the  element 
of  personal  error  tends  to  work  in  the  direction  towards  a 
previous,  accustomed  memory-picture.  Through  the  habit  of 
apperception  and  association  we  seem  to  have  acquired  a 
tendency  to  emphasize  equalities,  to  neglect  differences,  to 
allow  an  old  memory-picture  to  immediately  over-shadow  a 
new  perception,  so  that  we  do  not  realize  the  actual  difference 
between  the  old  and  the  new.  It  is  this  fact,  then,  which 
causes  extreme  similarity  to  appear  as  equality,  the  minute 
differences  remaining  unrecorded.  Of  course,  as  the  actual 
discrepancy  between  similar  impressions  increases,  it  will  make 
itself  felt  more  and  more  distinctly  in  the  composite  impress. 

^  Cf.  Leuba  in  Clark  University  Minor  Studies  in  Psychology,  I. 


PHONETIC   LAW   AND   ANALOGY.  9 

The  latter  will  then  unconsciously,  or  more  or  less  consciously 
deviate  from  the  previous  imprint.  As  long  as  the  element  of 
equality  by  far  prevails,  the  congruous  parts,  having  the 
advantage  of  repetition,  will  alone  constitute  our  clear  concep- 
tion, while  the  deviating  elements  largely  remain  unconscious, 
or  form  about  our  conceptions  a  circle  of  vague  suggestiveness. 
On  the  other  hand,  impressions  which  have  only  small  and 
insignificant  parts  in  common  and  which  are  essentially  different 
from  each  other  will  overlap  but  little,  being  in  the  main 
registered  separately.  Such  perceptions  may  be  so  loosely 
associated  with  each  other  that  they  need  especially  favorable 
circumstances  for  calling  each  other  up  at  all.  Here  belongs 
the  peculiarly  complicated  yet  loose  connection  which  exists 
between  the  simultaneous  impressions  of  the  different  senses. 
They  have  in  common  the  element  of  time,  that  means,  of 
surrounding,  the  general  condition  ("  Gemeingefiihl '')  of  the 
individual.  They  are  indeed  altogether  a  physiological  unit, 
because  the  various  sensory  centres  are,  of  course,  directly 
and  indirectly  connected  among  each  other  in  the  indi- 
vidual.^ 

Yet  the  unit  is — as  in  the  case  of  most  perceptions  and 
sensations — distinctly  a  complex  one,  and  experience  shows 
that  the  different  constituents,  as  they  are  introduced  by  the 
various  channels  of  the  nervous  system,  only  connect  very 
loosely  with  each  other.  A  sight-picture  does  not  normally 
impart  any  distinct  impression  to  the  acoustic  centre.    Indeed 

^  In  fact  from  a  physiological  as  well  as  a  historical  point  of  view,  there  is 
in  man  a  double  connection  between  the  seats  of  the  various  senses :  the  one, 
of  a  higher  order,  located  mainly  in  the  cortex  in  which  all  the  centripetal 
and  centrifugal  nerves  are  combined  into  a  more  or  less  self-conscious 
unit;  this  is  best  developed  and  capable  of  highest  perfection  in  man, 
diminishing  and  graduating  away  in  the  lower  animals ; — the  other,  located 
in  the  lower  parts  of  the  brain,  the  cerebellum  and  the  medulla,  the 
province  of  reflex  actions  between  the  diflferent  branches  of  the  system ;  this 
interrelation  is  stronger  and  more  depended  upon  in  the  lower  animals  than 
in  the  more  developed  ones ;  it  is  evidently  the  remnant  of  the  original 
uniformity  of  the  whole  nervous  system. 


10  G.    E.    KARSTEN. 

the  main  effect  of  one  sensory  centre  upon  the  others  seems  ^ 
to  consist  in  a  general  agitation  through  the  whole  system, 
arousing  or  dulling  it  into  a  certain  state  of  susceptibility. 
Thence  it  comes  that  when  one  of  the  parts  of  such  a  simul- 
taneous impression  is  in  the  future  repeated,  it  does  not  neces- 
sarily call  up  again  the  whole  previous  group.  The  connecting 
element  is  not  strong  enough  to  link  the  different  parts  imme- 
diately together;  yet  the  oftener  the  latter  are  introduced 
together,  the  prompter  and  the  more  unfailingly  will  the  con- 
nection work — it  is  strengthened  by  repetition. — This  obser- 
vation finds  its  reflex  in  the  physiological  fact,  that  when 
through  a  lesion  of  the  brain  the  usual  path  between  two  parts 
is  destroyed,  and  a  new  connection  is  formed,  the  new  line  will 
at  first  conduct  only  imperfectly,  but  through  habit  the 
transmission  becomes  more  and  more  correct  and  prompt. 
With  these  premises  we  shall  readily  understand  two  phases 
of  language-learning,  that  of  remembering  and  of  under- 
standing words. — The  child  hears  the  word  mama  while  its  eyes 
reflect  the  features  of  the  mother  and  while  through  her  care 
it  is  being  made  comfortable  and  happy.  That  means,  at  the 
central  organ  a  group  of  simultaneous  reports  are  received : 
there  is  the  sound-picture  of  the  word  mama,  there  is  the  sight 
picture  of  the  mother's  features,  and  there  are,  through  various 
other  channels,  reports  of  pleasant  sensations.  The  sound- 
picture  mama  is  thus  connected  with  the  remainder  of  the 
group.    Now  the  situation  passes  by,  the  associated  impressions 

^  This  question,  like  many  others  relating  to  the  working  of  the  nervous 
system  and  the  brain,  is  yet  far  from  being  settled.  Numerous  cases  are'  on 
record  of  a  very  distinct  and  immediate  inter-relation  between  the  different 
senses.  The  author  can  here  speak  from  his  own  experience ;  the  vowel 
sounds  most  vividly  suggest  to  him  colors  and  vice  versa :  a  =  red,  o  = 
blue,  e  =  green,  a  =:  yellow,  i  =  white,  u  =  purple-black,  etc.  Our  languages 
abound  in  precipitates  of  such  and  similar  connections :  loud  colors,  soft 
sounds,  etc.,  etc. — But  however  immediate,  unavoidable,  and  natural,  such 
mutual  interrelations  may  appear  to  us,  it  seems  difficult  to  prove,  that  they 
are  not  the  result  of  early  associations  brought  about  by  personal  experi- 
ence of  the  individual  or  of  his  ancestors. — Yet  see  now  Krohn,  "  Pseudo- 
Chromesthesia,"  Am.  Jour,  of  Psychology,  V,  pp.  20-42. 


PHONETIC  LAW  AND  ANALOGY.  11 

drop  into  unconsciousness  and  there  they  remain,  as  memory 
pictures.  The  following  times,  whenever  the  word  mama  is 
heard,  the  situation  again  includes  the  shape  of  the  mother 
and,  besides,  usually  a  number  of  pleasurable  sensations.  The 
latter,  though  mostly  pleasant  will,  however,  vary  greatly  in 
detail,  while  the  sight-picture  of  the  mother  and  the  sound- 
picture  of  mama  mostly  form  a  part  of  the  group.  These  two 
most  stable  elements  form  thus  the  most  distinct  impressions 
and  are  preeminently  connected  with  each  other :  the  word 
mama  finally  means  nothing  else  distinctly  but  the  mother, 
while  all  the  other  impressions  oscillate  about  the  sight-  and 
sound-pictures,  uniting  what  they  have  in  common,  and  thus 
surround  the  word  mama  or  mother  with  that  halo  of  sacred 
sweetness  which  it  possesses  everywhere.  In  this  way  the 
sound-picture  of  every  word  is  fixed  in  our  memory,  receives 
its  distinct  meaning  and  also,  to  a  large  extent  at  least,  its 
collateral  associations,  its  suggestiveness  and  general  character, 
or  what  might  be  called  its  topographical  place  in  the  indi- 
viduaFs  vocabulary.  This  process  is  fundamentally  the  same 
everywhere :  in  the  child,  when  it  learns  its  first  words  from 
parents  and  servants,  in  the  youth,  when  taught  to  accelerate 
the  acquisition  of  new  material  by  paying  special  attention  to 
his  language,  in  the  foreigner  who  tries  to  learn  something  from 
everybody,  in  all  men  as  they  are  gaining  a  fuller  and  more 
correct  use  of  their  mother-tongue.  There  is  no  reason  to 
believe  that  the  process  was  essentially  different  at  the  time 
when  human  language  was  in  its  first  formative  period. 

Our  next  question  is,  how  do  we  learn  to  pronounce  and  to 
use  words  correctly  ?  Bearing  in  mind  that  we  do  not  speak 
here  of  the  first  origin  of  speech,  but  of  the  normal  nature  of 
an  already  existing  language,  we  will  first  recall  the  fact, 
emphasized  by  Whitney,  that  we  must  hear  a  word  from  others, 
before  we  can  think  of  pronouncing  it  ourselves ;  hearing 
precedes  and  elicits  speaking;  the  first  foundation  of  our 
vocabulary  consists  of  words  whose  sound-pictures  we  have 
already  developed  in  our  memory.    We  reproduce  these  words 


12  G.    E.    KARSTEN. 

as  we  heard  them ;  we  imitate.  The  kind  of  imitative  repro- 
duction however,  is  of  a  somewhat  complex  nature.  We  have 
only  the  final  aim,  the  result  to  guide  us,  while  we  know  next 
to  nothing  about  the  way  in  which  this  result  was  and  can 
again  be  obtained.  We  cannot  see  the  motions  of  the  vocal 
organs  in  other  persons  clearly  enough  to  be  guided  by  them ; 
nor  have  we  control  enough  over  our  own  organs,  consciously 
to  repeat  the  motions  of  others,  even  if  we  could  see  them. 
How,  then,  does  the  child  contrive  to  pronounce  any  given  word 
for  the  first  time  ?  Indeed  another  question  would  first  arise. 
What  is  it  that  induces  the  child  to  use  its  vocal  apparatus 
at  all  ?  We  can  only  state  the  fact  that  children  can  and  do 
cry  almost  before  they  can  perform  any  other  motion.  That 
means,  they  inherit  a  predisposition  to  produce  sounds  with 
their  vocal  organs ;  the  motory  nerves  which  control  the  latter 
respond  easily  to  every  sensation  that  is  reported  at  the  central 
organ.  Therefore  whatever  agitation  may  be  felt  anywhere 
in  the  nervous  system,  it  is  especially  the  vocal  apparatus  that 
is  set  in  motion,  to  restore  the  equilibrium.  Moreover,  there 
seems  to  be  an  especially  close  correspondence  between  the 
motory  nerves  of  the  vocal  organs  and  the  sensory  acoustic 
centres ;  the  former  are  called  upon  to  react,  as  soon  as  an  idea 
agitates  the  child's  mind  and  in  connection  with  it  the  sound 
picture  of  a  word  arises.  As  the  eye  governs  the  hand,  thus 
the  ear  controls  the  vocal  apparatus.  The  tendency,  at  least, 
to  develop  this  interrelation  is  also  inherited  and  thus  far  may 
it  be  said  that  Language  is  natural  to  man. 

But  what  enables  the  child  to  move  its  vocal  organs  in  the 
right  way  so  as  to  reproduce  a  certain  sound  ?  This  ability 
must  be  acquired  by  each  individual  through  practice,  just  as 
the  execution  of  almost  every  motion  must  be  learned.  Yet 
the  child  undergoes  a  good  deal  of  preparation  for  its  first  task. 
Long  before  it  tries  to  reproduce  any  one  word,  it  has  been 
uttering  many  different  sounds  and  sound-groups  at  hazard, 
without  any  purpose  but  that  of  motion  as  an  outlet  of  agi- 
tation.    Of  course,  it  has  at  the  same  time  been  hearing  the 


PHONETIC   LAW   AND   ANALOGY.  13 

phonetic  effects  of  those  motions,  its  own  cries  and  sounds. 
An  association,  an  unconscious  grouping  has  taken  place 
between  the  various  sounds  and  the  sensation  of  the  muscular 
motions  that  produced  the  former.  The  child  says  many  times 
may  ma,  ma,  papapa  before  it  notices  that  mama,  papa  have 
any  meaning.  These  first  sounds  are  caught  up  by  the  parents, 
they  are  repeated  and  interpreted  as  mama,  papa — in  fact, 
these  words,  most  likely,  owe  their  origin  to  baby-talk.  Now 
the  child  hears  his  own  mamama  repeated  as  mamay  he  gradu- 
ally— as  we  saw  above — connects  the  word  with  its  meaning 
and  thus  it  is  that  when  he  first  wishes  to  say  mama,  the  way  is 
prepared,  the  vocal  organs  move  about  in  the  right  way,  because 
the  sensation  of  the  required  motion  is  already  developed. 
The  scope  of  phonetic  acquisitions  is  thus  gradually  enlarged, 
until  all  the  sounds  of  the  mother  tongue  are  at  his  disposal. 
To  be  sure,  none  of  the  first  reproductions  of  a  word  are 
entirely  successful ;  many  attempts  may  be  necessary,  before 
the  resulting  sound  is  in  harmony  with  the  sound  picture  in 
the  speaker's  mind.  Little  by  little,  however,  the  motion  and 
the  sensation  of  motion  adapt  themselves  and  become  so 
familiar,  the  connection  between  the  idea,  the  sound-picture, 
the  sensation  and  the  execution  of  the  motion,  becomes  so  per- 
fect, that  the  conception  is  expressed  by  the  pronounced  word 
with  a  promptness  which  approaches  the  immediateness  of  a 
reflex  motion.^ 

There  are  other  factors  of  importance  for  the  development  of 
speech,  we  may  mention  especially  the  motive  of  sym})athy  on 
the  part  of  the  hearer;^  but  what  has  been  said,  will  be 
sufficient — as  it  was  necessary — to  help  us  to  understand  our 

^  In  this  connection  we  mention  the  controversy,  if  such  it  may  be  called, 
between  Max  Miiller  and  Whitney.  Max  Miiller  has  published  and  re- 
published large  volumes  in  which  he  assumes  and  tries  to  prove  that  Lan- 
guage and  Thought  are  identical ;  Whitney  has  several  times  taken  occasion 
to  expose  the  absurdity  of  this  assertion,  but  apparently  without  any  effect 
upon  Miiller  whose  recent  publications  still  essentially  repeat  the  funda- 
mental errors  of  the  first  editions. 

'■'Cp.  Wegener,  Grundfragen,  pp.  13  and  66. 


14  G.   E.   KARSTEN. 

special  subject.  It  appears  that  it  is  not  the  spoken  word  that 
changes,  but  the  acoustic  picture  in  our  mind  through  its 
transmission  from  one  individual  to  the  other.  Treating  now 
first  the  especially  so-called  phonetic  changes,  it  is  clear  that 
the  very  act  of  speaking  involves  the  possibility  and  the 
necessity  of  change.  We  saw  how  Language  must  be  gradually 
acquired  and,  of  course,  the  process  of  learning  which  goes  on 
throughout  life  suggests  all  imaginable  phases  of  development, 
from  the  first  uncertain  attempts  of  the  child  to  the  high 
degree  of  perfection  which  the  trained  and  refined  man  may 
obtain.  When  we  further  consider  that  men  are  not  all  equally 
gifted  and  have  not  all  equal  opportunities,  we  at  once  under- 
stand that  there  must  be  an  infinite  number  of  speech  varieties 
in  existence  all  the  time.  Accurately  speaking,  there  are  as 
many  different  varieties  as  there  are  persons  speaking  and  even 
the  language  of  every  individual  may  be  subdivided  into 
different  kinds  of  speech  according  to  the  mental  condition  of 
the  speaker  and  the  social  atmosphere  in  which  he  is  moving 
at  the  time.  All  these  speech  varieties  are  constantly  influ- 
encing each  other.  Even  a  pronunciation  noticeably  different 
from  our  own  and  one  which  we  subconsciously  feel  to  be  less 
perfect  will  affect  our  own  speech  as  long  as  the  sound  pictures 
heard  promptly  call  up  and  join  the  memory-pictures  in  our 
mind,  and  the  result  must  be  a  new,  composite  sound-picture, 
a  compromise  between  the  old  and  the  new.  However,  the 
act  of  speaking  causes  a  steady  change  of  speech  in  still 
another  way.  While  the  mutual  influence  of  the  different 
speech-varieties  upon  each  other  might  be  expected  to  finally 
lead  to  some  agreement,  a  source  of  incessant  transitions  lies 
in  the  fact,  that  no  one,  not  even  the  best  trained  speaker, 
reaches  absolute  perfection,  so  as  to  make  his  own  pronunciation 
invariably  and  entirely  harmonize  with  the  sound-picture  in 
his  own  mind,  Nor  is  the  hearer  always  in  a  position  to 
receive  the  spoken  sounds  exactly  as  they  were  uttered.  Both 
our  sense  of  hearing  and  especially  the  nerve-muscle  apparatus 
of  our  vocal  organs  are  unfit  for  absolute   accuracy ;  on  its 


PHONETIC  LAW  AND  ANALOGY.  15 

complicated  way  from  mind  to  mind,  the  speaker's  sound- 
picture  is  liable  to  be  reproduced  in  a  somewhat  altered  form 
in  the  hearer's  mind,  there  modifying  again  the  memory-picture 
and  even  its  own  prototype,  for,  of  course,  the  speaker  himself 
is  at  the  same  time  hearer  also. 

If  then  a  slow  but  incessant  change  is  possible  and  una- 
voidable, the  question  arises  in  which  direction  does  the  change 
take  place  and  which  are  the  directive  factors  that  determine 
its  course?  Historical  philology  shows  the  fact  that  gradual 
transitions  of  sounds  take  place  in  all  possible  directions,  that 
no  general  principle  can  be  stated  which  would  enable  us  to 
predict  what  any  individual  sound  or  sound-group  will  become 
in  the  future.  We  can  only  register  historical  facts  and  from 
these  we  may  try  to  draw  our  conclusions  as  to  their  causes. 
Several  reasons  have  been  justly  quoted  which  may  account 
for  the  direction  of  sound-change  in  a  general  way.  On  the 
one  hand  the  element  of  euphony,  vague  and  subjective  as  it 
may  be,  must  yet  be  recognized  as  an  agent  that  will  influence 
the  production  of  sounds ;  of  course  we  are  speaking  of  the 
unconscious  preference  for  some  shade  of  sound  that  may  be 
more  sympathetic  than  another.  On  the  other  hand,  and 
equally  unconscious,  the  motive  of  ease,  of  economy  of  energy, 
is  at  work  shaping  the  pronunciation  of  our  words.  But 
while  both  these  factors,  the  acoustic  element  of  euphony  and 
the  genetic  motive  of  ease,  may  underlie  all  phonetic  change 
in  general,  they  yield,  for  that  very  reason,  quite  unsatisfactory 
explanations  of  any  one  individual  transition.  The  question 
still  remains,  why  is  it  that  these  same  causes  lead  to  a  certain 
result  in  one  case,  while  at  another  time  they  produce  just  the 
opposite  effect  ?    Some  scholars  ^  ascribe  a  determining  influ- 

'  Scherer,  Osthoff,  Kauffmann.  Very  different  from  their  theories  is  the 
fact  which  Sievers  first  discovered,  that  the  ordinary  position  of  the  organs 
of  speech — "  Indifferenzlage  " — and  therefore  the  basis  of  articulation  is  a 
different  one  in  the  speakers  of  different  languages.  How  far  this  is  due 
to  racial  differences  or  to  the  influence  of  the  languages  themselves,  remains 
to  be  decided.  My  own  observation  leads  me  to  believe  that  it  is  not  only 
the  cause  but  mainly  the  result  of  speech -peculiarities. 


16  G.    E.    KARSTEN. 

ence  to  descent,  race  differences,  or  to  climatic  conditions,  or 
to  historical  events ;  and  undoubtedly  it  must  be  granted  that 
everything  that  influences  speaking  man  physiologically  or 
psychologically  must  modify  his  speech  in  a  certain  way. 
However,  it  must  also  be  confessed  that  as  yet  nothing  is 
known  in  general  or  in  detail  about  the  direction  in  which 
these  factors  may  tend  to  affect  language.  Much  has  been  said 
about  the  soft  and  musical  sounds  of  the  South  as  compared 
with  the  harsh,  rough  Northern  type,  but,  as  Whitney  has 
rightly  stated,  no  concrete  illustrations  can  be  quoted  that  could 
not  be  counterbalanced  by  as  many  examples  which  would 
seem  to  prove  the  opposite.  Important  as  may  be  the  effects  of 
these  agencies,  they  seem  to  be  hopelessly  covered  up  by  the 
cross  influence  of  other  factors  which  lead  to  more  immediate 
results.  They  are  on  the  one  hand,  it  may  well  be  j^resumed, 
largely  interfered  with  by  the  personal  qualities  of  the  indi- 
vidual speaker,  by  his  private  condition  of  life,  his  habits,  his 
general  character.  Probably  the  poor  people,  the  laboring 
classes  all  over  the  globe,  have  more  features  in  common  that 
are  liable  to  modify  their  speech,  than  all  the  members  of  any 
one  nation  or  race,  and  so  have  the  people  who  lead  sedentary 
lives,  and  so  the  old,  and  the  young,  the  men,  and  the  women. 
This  consideration  shows  how  difficult  it  will  forever  be,  to 
distinguish  any  traces  of  racial,  historical,  climatic  influences 
within  this  diversified  mass  of  individual  cross  influences. 
The  difficulty  seems  to  grow  into  an  impossibility,  when  we 
remember  that  a  safe  standard  for  comparison  is  not  at  our 
disposal,  because  no  two  languages  or  dialects  possess  the  same 
speech-material.  Moreover,  and  this  is  of  very  great  im- 
portance, the  influences  of  all  the  agencies  mentioned  are 
superseded  by  that  of  speech-intercourse.  It  is  pre-eminently 
the  speech-community  which  moulds  the  individuaPs  language. 
But  first  it  may  be  well  to  call  to  mind  what  a  speech-com- 
munity is.  Accurately  speaking,  the  individuaPs  speech-com- 
munity comprises  all  those  and  only  those  people  with  whom 
the  individual  actually  associates,  whose  language  he  hears. 


PHONETIC  LAW  AND  ANALOGY.  17 

And  it  is  clear  that  this  means  something  different  in  the  case 
of  every  person.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  evident  that  all 
these  speech-circles  are  more  or  less  closely  interwoven  with 
each  other  and  act  upon  the  individual  directly  or  indirectly. 
This  all-controlling  influence  manifests  itself  in  a  double  way  : 
persons  will  speak  the  same  language  in  proportion  as  they 
grow  up  and  live  with  each  other  in  an  evenly  intimate  inter- 
course. If  the  Negro,  the  Irishman,  Frenchman,  German  in 
America,  the  Jew  in  Germany,  is  promptly  recognized  by  his 
peculiar  brogue,  it  is  mainly  because  he  associates  more  with 
people  of  his  own  kind  proportionately  than  with  the  public  at 
large.  On  the  other  hand  a  community  entirely  homogeneous, 
and  of  course,  subject  to  the  same  climatic  conditions,  will  yet 
develop  within  itself  several  speech-varieties  in  proportion  as 
social  groupings  exist  whose  members  associate  more  intimately 
with  each  other  than  with  persons  of  other  groups;  and  it 
is  not  in  such  cases  the  general  nature  of  the  speaker  that 
causes  him  to  belong  to  the  one  or  the  other  language-group, 
but  as  he  changes  over  from  one  social  circle  into  another,  he 
will  unconsciously  adopt  the  speech  of  the  new  circle ;  in  fact 
the  same  person  may  acquire  the  peculiarities  of  several  lan- 
guage-circles, that  means,  he  may  speak  several  similar,  yet 
noticeably  differing  languages  and  use  them  in  accordance  with 
the  suggestions  of  the  momentary  situation.  Such  facts  prove 
in  a  general  way  the  predominating  power  of  speech-inter- 
course. Yet  it  may  be  questioned  just  how  far  and  why  the 
latter  succeeds  in  overruling  individual  speech-tendencies.  The 
sound-pictures  in  the  tnemory  of  every  individual  are  of  course 
nothing  but  the  results,  the  composite-images  of  all  the  sounds 
which  the  individual  has  ever  heard,  with  a  strong  predomi- 
nance of  those  heard  last.  So  the  language  of  the  whole 
speech-community  is  directly  or  indirectly  the  parent  and 
prototype  of  the  individual's  language.  But  we  must  remember 
that  the  individual  speaker  himself  is  not  only  a  member  of 
that  very  community,  but  on  the  average  every  single  person 
hears  his  own  language  as  much  as  that  of  all  the  other  people 


18  G.   E.   KARSTEN. 

put  together,  and  every  single  pronunciation  of  a  word  modi- 
fies not  only  the  sound-picture  in  the  speaker^s  own  mind,  but 
also  his  sensations  of  motion.  These  two  facts,  the  double 
reaction  of  the  speaker's  own  language  upon  itself  and  its 
numerical  preponderance  over  any  other  speech-variety  would 
strongly  favor  the  development  of  individual  peculiarities. 
Yet  this  tendency  is  very  successfully  checked  through  other 
agencies  which  are  rooted  in  the  very  nature  of  human  language. 
The  latter  is  distinctly  a  means  not  only  of  expression  but,  and 
much  more,  of  intercommunication.  It  develops  out  of  social 
necessities  and  instincts,  of  a  certain  sympathy  between  hearer 
and  speaker.  The  willingness  on  the  part  of  the  former  to 
listen,  to  understand,  and  to  react,  offers  to  the  latter  the  main 
encouragement  to  speak,  as  Wegener  has  well  expounded  in 
his  book  mentioned  above.  And  similarly  the  act  of  speaking 
presupposes  a  desire  to  make  the  listener  understand.  Out  of 
this  mutual  relation  grows  the  tendency  to  adapt  one's  own  lan- 
guage to  that  of  the  speech-communityj  so  that  not  only  some 
crude  expression  but  as  perfect  a  mutual  understanding  as 
possible  may  be  obtained,  and  all  hesitancy  or  partial  mis- 
understanding, all  loss  of  time  or  energy  may  be  avoided. 
This  is  the  uniting  and  at  the  same  time  the  main  conservative 
factor  in  Speech,  for  the  result  is,  of  course,  not  only  an 
increased  attention  and  readiness  to  apperceive  the  sound- 
pictures  of  others,  but  also  a  tendency,  in  one's  own  pronunci- 
ation, to  reproduce  as  exactly  as  possible  the  sound-pictures 
thus  received ;  to  be  sure  the  succass  is  only  relatively  complete ; 
no  two  individuals  have  absolutely  the  sdme  pronunciation  and 
no  language  is  absolutely  stable.  While  in  this  struggle  of 
uniting  and  conservative  against  differentiating  and  modifying 
elements  it  is  impossible  in  a  single  case  to  determine  the  work 
of  either  of  them,  some  general  conclusions  may  nevertheless 
be  drawn  from  what  has  been  said  so  far :  when  every  one 
unconsciously  tends  to  hear  and  pronounce  as  well  as  he  can, 
the  personal  deviation  will  be  reduced  to  as  little  as  possible. 
What  remains  is  the  unavoidable   result  of  the  individual's 


PHONETIC  LAW  AND  ANALOGY.  19 

physiological  and  psychological  short-comings.  Now  the  right 
sensation  of  motion  will  naturally  be  most  distinctly  acquired 
and  the  sound-picture  most  exactly  perceived  by  the  most 
refined,  the  most  social,  and  the  best-trained  speaker.  The 
latter,  however,  the  sound-picture,  will  also  depend  upon  the 
character  of  the  community :  when  the  parent  prototype,  i.  e. 
all  the  various  sounds  heard,  do  not  differ  much  from  each 
other,  then  the  composite  sight-picture  in  the  individual  will 
be  very  distinct  and  precise.  In  proportion  as  the  parent 
pictures  were  heterogeneous,  the  composite  result  will  be  vague, 
and  admit  and  be  suggestive  of  different  shades  and  varieties. 
This  will  in  turn  leave  the  innervation  without  strict  direction 
and  allovv  more  deviation.  It  is  evident,  then,  that  in  an 
exclusive,  homogeneous,  highly  developed  and  very  social 
community  the  standard  of  pronunciation  will  be  strict,  un- 
compromising, and  the  same  will  be  longer  preserved;  in 
proportion  as  the  community  extends,  as  it  is  heterogeneous, 
as  coarser  elements  prevail  and  speech  intercourse  is  less  inti- 
mate, language  will  become  more  diversified,  and  it  will  be 
also  more  susceptible  of  change.  In  reality,  the  net-work  of 
speech  intercourse  among  men  is  very  unevenly  woven ;  all 
kinds  of  influences,  social,  financial,  religious,  political,  national, 
geographical,  are  apt  to  divide  people  into  more  or  less  ex- 
clusive groups.  In  each  of  these  a  different  sum  total  of 
individual  tendencies  prevails,  and  manifests  itself  in  different 
shades  of  speech  ;  as  the  uniting  influence  of  mutual  intercourse 
decreases,  these  shades  between  whole  groups  may  accumulate 
and  result  in  the  formation  of  distinctly  different  dialects. 
We  now  return  to  the  more  special  study  of  Language  in 
the  individual  and  to  the  question — which  are  the  factors 
that  determine  the  direction  of  sound-change  ?  •  We  saw  that 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  subject,  the  speaker,  nothing 
definite  can  be  said ;  it  is  impossible  as  yet,  to  discover  any 
trace  of  climatic,  racial,  historical  influences.  Somewhat  better 
results  are  obtained  when  the  object,  the  speech-material  itself 
is  considered.     Upon  the  basis  of  the  physiological  genesis  of 


20  G.   E.   KARSTEN. 

sounds  a  classification  of  sound  changes  can  be  made  and  this 
fact  would  at  once  suggest  that  there  must  indeed  be  a  causal 
connection  between  the  conditions  of  the  sounds  and  their 
changes.  There  is,  first  of  all,  the  most  distinct  and  universal 
influence  which  emphasis  exercises  upon  the  fate  of  speech- 
sounds.  Accented  syllables  develop  everywhere  in  a  way 
different  from  unaccented  ones,  the  latter  being  more  subject 
to  assimilations,  or  to  shortening.  Within  the  various  lan- 
guages historical  philology  further  reveals  the  fact — which 
was  already  stated  above — that  sound-change  usually  affects 
not  individual  words,  but  modifies  whole  groups  of  words 
in  one  and  the  same  direction,  and  generally  the  province  of 
a  sound-change  can  be  defined  by  describing  the  physiological 
nature  and  conditions  of  the  equally  modified  sounds.  Some- 
times, Phonetics  will  even,  together  with  the  process  of  the 
change,  disclose  also  its  reasons  :  the  organs  of  speech,  subject 
to  general  laws  of  gravity  and  perseverance,  or  owing  to 
psychological  impulses  which  resulted  from  the  situation,  had  a 
tendency  to  deviate  from  their  former  lines  of  motion  in  a 
certain  direction  and  thus  effectuated  the  sound-change  under 
observation. 

It  is  in  these  cases  a  most  natural  thing  that  such  a  devi- 
ation should  have  occurred  not  only  in  one  individual  but  in 
many  persons  at  the  same  time,  and  that  the  change  should 
have  spread  and  manifested  itself  in  the  language  of  the 
community.  In  many  other  cases,  however,  the  conditions  of 
the  sounds  that  are  comprised  in  one  parallel  change  are  not  at 
all  equal  or  similar  among  each  other ;  sounds  will  undergo 
the  same  change  in  words  in  which  they  occur  under  noticeably 
different  physiological  circumstances,  only  one  of  which,  and 
sometimes  none,  can  well  be  held  mechanically  responsible  for 
the  change.  For  instance,  vowels  will  change  at  the  beginning 
or  end  into  a  more  palatal  or  velar  shade  before  and  after  all 
kinds  of  consonants,  when  indeed  the  on  and  off  glide  must 
be  expected  to  depend  upon  the  nature  of  the  neighboring 
sounds.     What  can  it  be  that  holds   these  variegated  cases 


PHONETIC  LAW   AND   ANALOGY.  21 

together  and  forces  them  all  into  parallel  changes  ?  Paul  says, 
it  is  the  one  innervation,  the  one  sensation  of  motion  which 
regulates  the  pronunciation  of  the  sound-element  concerned  in 
all  the  words  in  which  it  occurs ;  whenever  through  a  deviation 
in  any  one  word  the  innervation  is  modified,  the  pronunciation 
of  the  same  sound  in  all  other  words  is  regulated  by  that 
modified  innervation.  This  explanation  seems  indeed  quite 
satisfactory  in  the  case  of  all  those  changes  which  affect  a 
sound  under  substantially  equal  conditions,  so  that  the  un- 
conscious articulation  in  all  words  concerned  may  well  be 
supposed  to  respond  to  one  and  the  same  innervation.  This, 
however,  is  far  from  being  the  case  everywhere,  and  the  argu- 
ment does  not  hold  good,  when  the  physiological  genesis  of  the 
sounds  is  so  different,  that  not  only  scientific  phonetics,  but 
even  untrained,  everyday  observation  shows  a  marked  multi- 
plicity of  articulations.  Moreover,  while  it  must  be  granted 
that  the  sensation  of  motion,  especially  when  fairly  developed, 
is  indeed  an  important  unifying  factor,  it  is  at  the  same  time 
apparent  that  the  superior  regulative  power  lies  not  in  the 
innervation  but  in  the  sound-picture.  The  reproduction  of 
the  sound-picture  is  the  sole  aim  of  the  innervation ;  and  a 
sensation  of  motion  is  entirely  free  to  vary,  only  in  so  far  as 
it  does  not  tend  to  alter  the  sound-picture  but  to  reproduce  it 
more  accurately  ;  when  it  oversteps  the  limits  allowed  by  the 
sound-picture,  the  overwhelming  power  of  the  speech-com- 
munity exercises,  through  the  medium  of  the  sound-picture, 
a  checking,  conservative  influence,  and  what  little  change  a 
deviating  innervation  may  succeed  in  causing  in  the  sound- 
picture,  will  henceforth  determine  the  development  of  all  the 
several  innervations  whose  results  it  comprises.  Namely,  it  is 
a  fact — better  known  at  present  than  it  was  to  Paul — that 
different  articulations  may  lead  to  the  same  acoustic  result, 
that  the  various  organs  of  speech  may  vicariously  act  for  each 
other  and  yet  produce  practically  the  same  sound.  It  is  also 
a  psychological  fact  that  our  sense  of  hearing  is  particularly 
dull ;  the  average  man  is  pre-eminently  eye-minded.    Yet  even 


22  G.   E.   KARSTEN. 

with  the  keener  sense  of  sight  we  are  unable  to  notice  the 
gradual  daily  changes  of  our  friends  as  they  grow  into  man- 
hood or  old  age.  It  is  not  astonishing,  then,  that  with  the 
more  obtuse  sense  of  hearing  we  should  not  perceive  the 
difference  between  the  results  of  various,  similar  articulations ; 
that  means,  that  one  and  the  same  sound-picture  in  our  mind 
may  allow  its  orders  to  be  carried  out  by  various  innervations 
in  accordance  with  the  different  surroundings.  All  this  leads 
us  to  look  for  the  main  uniting  element  of  all  sound-change 
not  in  the  sensation  of  motion,  but  in  the  sound-picture.  Of 
course,  as  the  result  of  an  especially  deviating,  individual 
pronunciation,  any  innervation,  and  also  any  sound-picture, 
may  split  in  two,  or  rather  the  deviation  may  start  a  distinctly 
different  impression.  Under  favorable  conditions  this  division 
may  be  concurred  in  by  the  speech-community,  in  every  sense 
of  that  word;  and  then  we  state,  in  the  historical  study  of 
results,  the  effects  of  two  phonetic  laws  governing,  each  within 
its  own  physiological  and  geographical  limits,  the  same  group 
of  sound  varieties  which  so  far  had  responded  all  to  one  single 
law.  Similarly  two  different  innervations  or  sound-pictures 
may  become  more  and  more  alike  and  finally  merge  into 
each  other.  Thus  Old  Latin  e  and  I  unite  in  later  Latin  in  a 
medium  sound,  close  e,  short  or  long,  according  to  its  position 
in  the  syllable ;  then,  however,  this  e  differentiates  again,  and 
for  instance,  in  open  syllables  becomes  ei:  oi,  or  ei:  e,  or  ^,  under 
various  conditions.  In  A.  S.  both  a  before  nasal,  and  o  coin- 
cide in  o;  then  this  o  splits  into  o  and  ce:  e.  Aryan  oi  and  ai 
both  appear  as  ai  in  Germanic,  and  this  again  splits  in  some 
Germanic  dialects ;  in  O.  H.  G.  it  is  e  before  r,  h,  w  and  final, 
otherwise  d;  in  Old  Norse  it  is  differentiated  largely  after  the 
same  fashion.  The  phonology  of  all  languages  abounds  in 
examples. 

We  see,  then,  that  the  impulse  to  change  lies  in  the  indi- 
vidual pronunciation  and,  through  it,  in  the  innervation,  but 
we  also  understand  why  it  is  that  phoneticians  are  so  often 
unable  to  give  a  plausible  physiological  reason  for  a  certain 


PHONETIC  LAW  AND  ANALOGY.  23 

sound-change,  and  why  with  the  best  of  phonetics  we  shall 
never  be  able  to  predict  any  sound-change.  It  is  not  the 
phonetic  conditions  of  a  sound  in  any  one  word  or  position 
that  direct  the  transition ;  the  innervation  is  not  allowed  to 
change  in  accordance  with  its  own  physiological  motives 
exclusively ;  but  the  individual  innervation  is,  together  with 
possibly  several  other  sensations  of  motion,  checked  and  con- 
trolled by  one  sound-picture  and  in  the  final  change  of  the 
sound-picture  we  have  either  the  result  of  the  composite 
tendencies  of  all  the  innervations  concerned,  or  else,  at  best, 
the  outgrowth  of  some  one  tendency  which  for  some  reason 
had  a  predominating  influence  on  the  whole  group.  To  this 
explanation  the  same  objection  might  be  offered  which  has 
been  raised  against  PauPs  theory  ;  namely,  it  has  been  doubted 
whether  indeed  one  and  the  same  innervation  regulates  the 
pronunciation  of  a  sound-element  in  various  words.  This 
objection,  if  it  be  any,  is  untenable.  Paul's  theory  has  in  its 
favor  not  only,  as  has  been  said,  the  probability  of  a  plausible 
a  posteriori  explanation,  but  it  is  supported  by  clinical  experi- 
ence as  well  as  by  general  psychological  arguments.  It  is  a 
fact  of  common  medical  observation  that  a  lesion  of  the  brain 
may  destroy  or  impair  the  ability  to  pronounce  some  certain 
sound  or  sound-group.  And  when  thus  either  the  sound- 
picture  or  the  necessary  sensation  of  motion,  or  only  the  correct 
coordinative  regulation  of  the  different  motions  implied,  is  lost, 
the  respective  sounds  will  drop  out  or  suffer  mutilation  in  all 
words  in  which  they  would  normally  occur.  From  the  point 
of  view  of  psychology,  on  the  other  hand,  the  explanation 
here  adopted  is  apparently  included  in  the  theory  of  apper- 
ception and  association,  and  only  those  can  consistently  object 
to  it,  as  to  almost  everything  else  here  proferred,  who  are  not 
ready  to  accept  the  association  theory  itself.  Our  discus- 
sion thus  leads  us  in  a  somewhat  different  way  to  the  same 
result  which  Paul  obtained — to  the  law-theory.  For,  as  we  see 
it  now,  it  is  not  a  number  of  individual  sounds  in  so  many 


24  G.   E,  KARSTEN. 

words  which  change,  but  it  is  one  sound-picture  entering  into 
the  formation  of  so  many  word-pictures,  that  changes. 

The  fact  that  the  process  may  be  at  any  time  interrupted 
and  cut  short  in  individual  words,  when  the  latter  undergo 
the  influence  of  other  factors,  does  of  course  not  in  the  least 
alter  the  psychological  aspect  of  the  matter.  Nor  does  it 
diminish  the  importance  of  the  law-theory  either  from  a 
philological  or  from  a  psychological  stand-point.  A  few  hints 
may  here  suffice :  upon  the  law-theory  depends,  in  historical 
philology  our  decision  as  to  the  causes  of  innumerable  devi- 
ations from  what  seems  to  be  the  normal  development  of 
sounds ;  while  psychology  may  hope  some  day,  when  both  the 
genesis  and  the  acoustics  of  sounds  will  be  better  under- 
stood, to  ascertain  from  the  historical  sound-change  the  exact 
extent  of  individual  sound- varieties  that  may  be  apperceived 
into  one  sound-picture. 

We  need  to  add  but  little  to  explain  the  nature  of  Analogy. 
As  apperception  is  related  to  association — see  page  319 — ,  so 
Phonetic  Law  is  related  to  Analogy.  The  underlying  motive 
is  the  same,  but  the  materials  and  consequently  the  results  are 
different.  Phonetic  Law  is  based  upon  the  union  of  practically 
equal  sounds  into  one  and  the  same  sound-picture ;  this  involves 
sameness  of  fate.  Analogy  rests  upon  the  association  between 
different  sound-pictures  or  word-pictures  which  have  something 
in  common  with  each  other.  Here,  then,  the  equal  uniting 
parts  alone  are  apperceived  into  the  same  memory-picture, 
while  the  remainders  of  the  larger,  more  complex  speech-units 
form  each  an  impression  of  its  own.  For  instance,  there  are 
no  two  suffixes  or  words  in  any  language  which  resemble  each 
other  so  much  in  form  and  in  meaning  as  the  o  in  hone  resembles 
the  0  in  stone  and  which,  therefore,  could  be  reflected  by  one 
single  picture  in  our  memory.  Each  prefix,  suffix,  ending, 
word,  has  in  our  mind  a  representative,  a  memory-picture  of 
its  own,  and  this  composite  picture  comprises  the  various 
occurences  of  the  prefix  in  different  words,  or  of  the  word  in 
different  sentences,  as  one  and  the  same  sound-picture  covers 


PHONETIC  LAW  AND  ANALOGY.  25 

the  corresponding  sounds  as  they  enter  into  the  formation  of 
various  words.  All  the  different  memory-pictures,  however, 
are,  directly  or  indirectly,  connected  with  each  other  by  some 
similarity,  and  in  proportion  as  they  are  equal,  must  a  change 
of  one  affect  the  others  also.  Now  the  degree  of  similarity 
varies  greatly,  and  again,  one  and  the  same  element  of  equality 
may  be  common  to  a  larger  or  smaller  number  of  more  complex 
organisms.  Thus,  groups  are  formed  on  the  basis  of  the 
element  of  equality,  and,  as  is  natural  in  the  manifold  inter- 
relations between  diverse  complicated  units,  the  various  associ- 
ations may  conflict  with  each  other  in  their  influence  upon  the 
speech -material.  We  will  first  consider  the  simplest  kind 
of  analogy,  namely,  that  between  the  different  innervations 
and  sound-pictures. 

The  innervations  and  sound-pictures  which,  so  far,  we  have 
treated  as  units,  are  at  the  same  time  of  a  complex  nature. 
Every  sensation  of  motion  necessary  to  produce  a  speech-sound, 
governs  the  movement  of  all  the  organs  of  the  vocal  apparatus 
individually  and  also  regulates  the  correct  coordination  of  these 
movements;  and  on  the  other  hand,  every  sound-picture 
comprises  the  results  of  complicated  vibrations.  Now,  various 
innervations  may  and  actually  do  resemble  each  other  in  some 
features,  and  every  particle  which  any  two  or  more  sound- 
innervations  have  in  common,  is  of  course  the  identical  inner- 
vation of  its  own  wherever  it  occurs ;  a  change  which  affects 
it,  must  modify  all  the  sound-innervations  concerned  in  a 
parallel  manner ;  and  so  with  sound-pictures.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  that  this  phonetic  analogy^  or  better  perhaps  this 
anaphonyy^  is  the  main  source  of  the  peculiar  harmony  of 
sounds  and  sound-changes  which — as  Sievers  first  observed — 
shows  itself  within  individual  languages.  The  other  source 
is  probably  to  be  found  in  the  common  basis  of  articulation, 
the  result  of  the  sum  total  of  the  individuaPs  speech  peculiari- 

^  We  suggest  the  word  "  anaphony  "  for  this  phenomenon,  in  order  that 
the  expression  "  phonetic  analogy  "  may  be  reserved  for  those  interrelations 
between  word-dements  which  are  based  upon  eijuality  of  sounds. 


26  .  G.   E.   KAESTEN. 

ties.  Thus  we  understand  the  unmistakable  parallelism  of  the 
various  sound  changes  comprised  under  the  name  of  Grimm's 
Law,  or  the  development  of  voiceless  final  consonants  in  Gothic, 
Old  Norse,  or  Old  High  German ;  the  unrounding  of  palatalized 
vowels  in  German  dialects ;  the  far-reaching  phenomenon  of 
i  and  it-umlaut  in  Germanics ;  the  opening  and  vocalizing — 
"  das  Stimmhaftwerden  " — of  intervocal  Latin  consonants,  or 
the  higher  oif-glide  of  long,  narrow  vowels — o :  ou,  e:  ei — and 
the  higher  on-glide  of  the  corresponding  wide  vowels — o :  uo, 
e :  ie — in  Old  French ;  in  short,  all  those  larger  movements 
which  modern  phonology  more  and  more  clearly  recognizes. 

In  the  interrelations  between  larger  speech-elements — sylla- 
bles, words,  sentences — exactly  the  same  motives  are  at  work. 
In  order  to  recognize  this  fact  it  is  above  all  necessary  to 
avoid  a  mistake  which  is  apt  to  beset  the  mind  of  the  philolo- 
gist whose  attention  is  directed  principally  towards  changes 
of  word-forms.  The  student  of  historical  phonology  finds  the 
word  analogy  particularly  applied  to  words,  which  show  an 
irregularity  in  their  phonetic  development.  Formerly  these 
word-forms  were  attributed  to  false  analogy,  and  that  expres- 
sion— while  it  seems  to  ascribe  an  undue  superiority  to  forms 
sanctioned  by  usage — had  at  least  the  advantage  of  clearly 
indicating  to  the  beginner,  that  there  is  also  such  a  thing  as 
legitimate  analogy  at  work  in  Language.  To  be  sure  it  was 
this  very  idea,  that  an  analogy  was  never  a  false  one  in  itself, 
which  caused  Paul  and  others  to  protest  against  the  odious 
adjective. 

However,  as  the  word  analogy  seems,  in  the  minds  of  many, 
to  imply  the  idea  of  something  irregular,  exceptional,  it  may 
be  well  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  Analogy  is  the  main  consti- 
tutive factor  in  linguistic  morphology  and  in  syntax.  To  it 
are  due  our  systems  of  declension,  conjugation,  comparison, 
etc. ;  without  it  the  individual  would  be  strictly  limited  to  the 
mechanical  reproduction  of  such  word-forms,  as  he  has  actually 
heard,  while  through  analogy  we  are  able  to  form  new  words 
which  we  never  heard,  by  combining  known  elements  after 


PHONETIC  LAW  AND  ANALOGY.  27 

the  pattern  of  other  known  combinations ;  by  analogy  we  speak 
in  sentences.  When  the  child  has  heard  some  comparatives 
ending  in  -er  as  against  some  positives  without  that  ending,  a 
memory-picture  is  unconsciously  formed  containing  the  sound 
group  -er,  as  the  ending  of  an  adjective,  connected  with  the 
idea  of  comparative.  This  memory-picture  presents  itself, 
whenever  either  of  its  parts  is  touched  upon ;  the  ending  -er  is 
added  to  adjectives  when  the  idea  of  comparative  agitates  the 
mind,  and  vice  versa.  Similarly,  after  having  heard  and  under- 
stood the  structure  of  a  more  complicated  statement,  a  sentence, 
the  mind  connects  the  logical  categories  and  the  interrelations 
of  the  same  with  their  expressions  in  language  forms ;  memory- 
pictures  of  these  interrelations  are  developed  which  will 
henceforth  regulate  the  structure  of  sentences  equally  pro- 
portioned. Just  as  in  reading  a  word  which  we  never  heard 
our  memory-pictures  of  sound  and  of  innervation  enable  us 
to  pronounce  the  individual  sounds.  This  will  illustrate  the 
fact  that  analogy  is  not  essentially  diiferent  from  Phonetic 
Law,  so  far  as  the  mental  process  is  concerned :  some  certain 
speech-element  occurs  repeatedly  in  the  spoken  language  within 
larger  speech-units;  its  individual  occurrences — though  slightly 
differing  from  each  other — form  in  our  mind  one  composite 
impression,  one  memory-picture,  which  regulates  them  all,  but 
is  in  turn  apt  to  be  modified  by  every  new  utterance  of  the 
respective  element.  The  result  is  a  peculiar  harmony  in  the 
phonology  and  morphology  of  individual  languages. 

What  tends  to  obfuscate  in  our  mind  this  identity  of  process, 
is  the  fact  that  analogy,  so  called,  works  with  much  more 
complex  organisms,  and  quite  especially  the  fact  that  in 
Phonetic  Law  we  speak  of  equal  elements — speech-sounds — 
alone,  as  whole  units,  while  in  analogy  we  treat  the  much  more 
complicated  elements  of  equality  as  merely  parts  of  other 
units,  for  example,  we  compare  words  when  their  suffix  alone 
is  the  same,  and  from  the  point  of  view  of  these  larger  units 
we  can  of  course  only  state  similarity,  association,  whereas  in 
Phonetic   Law  we   speak   of  the   equal   elements   and   state 


28  G.   E.   KAESTEN. 

apperception  into  the  same  memory-picture.  This  may  be  of 
advantage  from  a  descriptive  point  of  view,  but  it  is  incon- 
sistent. Speech  sounds  are  no  more  or  less  units  of  their  own, 
to  be  studied  by  themselves,  than  are  prefixes,  endings,  words, 
logical  categories  and  their  inter-relations.  When  this  is  kept 
in  mind,  the  fundamental  identity  between  the  two  phenomena 
will  appear  clearly. 

The  question  now  arises,  why  should  the  study  of  results, 
historical  philology,  reveal  so  many  cases  of  exceptions  to  this 
general  harmony?  Why  should  analogy  and  phonetic  law 
ever  counteract  each  other,  when  they  are  indeed  manifestations 
of  the  same  mental  process  ?  The  answer  is  this :  sound- 
pictures  are  on  the  one  hand  connected  with  ideas ;  they  enter 
into  larger,  complex  units  which  comprise  form  and  meaning ; 
for  example,  the  suffix  -er,  as  we  saw  above,  combines  with 
the  idea  of  comparative,  we  develop  the  memory-picture  :  (idea 
of  comparative  and  suffix  -er).  On  the  other  hand,  however, 
sound-pictures  are  the  results  of  articulations,  and  the  latter, 
with  their  sensations  of  motion,  undergo  unavoidable  changes 
in  accordance  with  the  underlying  phonetic  conditions.  Thus 
a  sound  will  change  into  a  certain  other  sound  under  some 
conditions,  while  under  other  circumstances  it  is  modified 
differently.  Now  it  may  and  does  happen,  that  one  and  the 
same  sound  in  the  same  word  or  word-element — that  is,  con- 
nected with  the  same  meaning — occurs  under  different  phonetic 
conditions,  according  to  accent  and  surroundings,  and  thus  is 
subject  to  various  sound-changes.  In  many  English  dialects, 
for  instance,  r  remains  before  vowels,  while  before  consonants 
and  in  pause  it  disappears.  This  sound-change  which  turns  bird 
into  hddd,  while  it  leaves  America  intact,  affects  our  suffix  -er  in 
both  ways ;  before  words  beginning  with  a  vowel  it  is  -er,  or 
rather  -ar,  before  consonants  and  in  pause  it  becomes  -a.  Both 
suffixces  are  equivalent  in  meaning;  both  connect  with  the 
idea  of  the  comparative,  and  instead  of  the  former  unit  we  have 
now  two  sensations ;  (idea  of  comparative  -1-  suffix  -ar)  and 
(idea  of  comparative  +  suffix  a). 


PHONETIC  LAW  AND  ANALOGY.  29 

In  case  the  idea  of  the  comparative  now  agitates  the  mind  of 
a  speaker,  which  of  these  two  memory-pictures  will  present 
itself?  the  one  with  -dr  or  the  one  containing  -a  ?  Of  course, 
in  the  minds  of  the  persons  in  whom  the  change,  the  real 
transition^  originally  took  place,  the  sensation  of  motion 
coupled  with  the  sound-picture  regulates  the  pronunciation  in 
accordance  with  the  phonetic  conditions;  but,  the  change 
having  once  become  a  fact,  the  original  conditions  are  no  longer 
in  every  single  speaker  again  and  again  the  source  of  the  same 
change ;  those  conditions  may  no  longer  exist,  but  the  result, 
that  there  are  now  two  sounds  where  formerly  there  used  to 
be  one,  remains,  perpetuated  through  the  transmission  of  two 
ready-made  sound -pictures  to  every  new  hearer.  These  two 
sounds  are  perceived  successively,  as  they  occur  in  the  language : 
the  child  hears  hddd,  and  it  hears  America^  but  it  may  hear 
comparatives  ending  in  -ar  and  in  -9.  We  suppose  for  the 
sake  of  illustration,  that  the  d  -variety  should  have  first 
presented  itself,  alone  or  in  overwhelming  majority ;  then  it 
alone  will  form  a  distinct  memory-picture  and  the  sensation : 
(idea  of  comparative  +  suffix  -a)  will  cause  the  child  to  form 
new  comparatives  in  -a,  regardless  of  the  following  sound. 
Of  course,  a  man  who  only  knows  the  comparative  ending  -9, 
can  only  say  heb  is  heb ;  he  could  not  before  is  insert  an  r 
any  more  than  any  other  consonant. 

Later,  however,  both  suffixes,  -a  and  -ar,  are  introduced 
again  and  again  and  some  sort  of  discrimination  will  develop. 
The  latter  may  be  more  or  less  correct,  that  is,  in- accordance 
with  the  original  state  of  affairs ;  from  incomplete  materials, 
unevenly  introduced,  of  course,  no  just  criterion  can  be  derived. 
Perhaps  a  vast  majority  of  forms  in  -ar,  or  the  fact  that  these 
forms  were  more  intensely  apperceived,  may  create  the  sensation 
that  -dr  is  altogether  preferable  and  the  result  would  now  be : 
hetdr  is  hebr. 

^  We  would  here  quite  especially  refer  to  Paul  who  first  established  this 
very  important  distinction  between  change  and  interchange  of  sounds — 
"Lautwandel"  and  "  Lautwechsel." 


30  G.    E.    KAKSTEN. 

Gradually,  however,  the  correct  sensation  as  to  the  proportion 
between  the  suffixes  and  their  phonetic  conditions  develops  and 
the  man  now  says  :  hebr  is  betd,  in  accordance  with  the  original 
sources  of  both  varieties.  The  sensation  of  this  proportion 
may  even,  then,  affect  words  which  do  not  originally  belong 
to  this  category,  having  etymologically  the  suffix  -a  exclusively, 
the  proportion  "  suffix  -9 :  following  consonant  =  suffix  -ar  .•■ 
following  vowel "  may  produce  a  result :  the  idea  was  =  the 
idear — is.  But  even,  when  the  right  sensation  of  the  alterna- 
tion between  -ar  and  -a  is  already  developed,  either  one  of  the 
suffixes  may  at  times  be  so  predominant  that  the  respective 
memory-picture  presents  itself  with  more  ease  than  the  sen- 
sation of  proportion,  and  the  result  may  be  a  form  which 
from  the  descriptive  point  of  view  is  called  an  exception. 

This,  then,  is  the  nature  of  the  struggle  that  may  arise 
between  Phonetic  Law  and  Analogy  and  we  see  plainly  how 
there  can  be  a  variety  of  results  coming  from  a  perfectly  con- 
sistent working  of  the  same  psychological  motives,  when  the 
speech-material  varies  that  is  acquired  by  the  speaker  and  can 
alone  be  active  in  him. 

We  refrain  from  going  into  further  detail,  as  Paul  in  his 
Frindpien  and  more  fully  Wheeler  in  his  excellent  monograph 
have  attended  to  the  subject  of  Analogy  so  thoroughly  that 
we  have  nothing  new  to  add. 

GusTAF  E.  Karsten. 


QNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


